I shoot both FF Nikon DSLRs and M43 bodies. I can get equally good shots from both systems. Only an insecure tech geek would think a mirrorless FF body would give them godly photography skills making them superior to all others.

I shoot both FF Nikon DSLRs and M43 bodies. I can get equally good shots from both systems. Only an insecure tech geek would think a mirrorless FF body would give them godly photography skills making them superior to all others.

Click to expand...

Only an insecure tech geek would post that a camera (clearly superior to m4/3'rds) is compatible with huge dslrs or hamstrung m4/3rds offerings.

While that's true, it certainly doesn't hurt to have a nice look for a camera. For some of us (yours truly included) physical aesthetics are still a major factor, maybe almost as much as IQ/features etc etc.

Yeah, I really want to switch to Sony too but really couldn't afford it. 1600 for a camera is a lot of money for me. Even I could afford the body, I couldn't afford the lens. I personally couldn't imagine myself spending 1600 on cameras, maybe if I get paid for it but I certainly won't pay anything close to that. Lets hope the Sony 7r drops to 600 soon.

I no longer see :43: in my future or camera bag, and in addition I have a lousy history here. The run-ins were all very petty and childish and put me in a bad place.

I find I'm better suited to Google+ and a few other forums, but if you are interested in my work you can go to www.digitalandfilm.com which I just redesigned or G+.

Thank you Amin for allowing me back after some nasty comments, etc.

Keep shooting- F8 and be there!"

You left with good grace, but have you returned with that same good grace, or mainly to mock us with the news of what you see as a game changer from Sony? Sorry, but I can forsee this thread ending badly and given that you've already stated you see no future with :43: for yourself and feel this forum no longer suits you I do wonder at your motives for starting this thread.

Haha, I don't mean to be rude, but you're sounding a little exaggerated, although I'm sure your feelings are genuine.

In any case, we all knew this was coming. I'm pretty sure not a single person who frequents a Micro Four Thirds website hadn't heard the rumors about this that had been floating around for months upon months. Thus, I'm not sure what the furor around users of some of the M4/3 sites is. The comparison keeps on being made to the E-M1 when it's only somewhat of a fair comparison. The E-M1 remains the significantly more pro-specced camera for a variety of obvious reasons (depending on what sort of "pro" you are) for stills, and it remains on more affordable a system. The E-M5 is a fairer comparison, but still specced over the A-7r. Something like a weather sealed G6 would be more apt.

The facts of the matter are this: Sony, as usual, did an incredible job of miniaturizing their cameras. But it's important to recognize that this is the absolute smallest a full frame kit is ever going to get. Sure, there might be slight miniaturizations in the future, but it's very very unlikely any future bodies will be very significantly smaller other than a removal of the viewfinder until there is some radical technological advancement with like nanobot modular cameras or something.

More importantly, FF lenses will always be huge compared to M4/3 lenses. No getting around it. You can shoot old rangefinder sized manual focus only lenses to miniaturize your kit, of course, but that comes with obvious compromises.

In other words, one of the smallest possible FF kits is now the A7r with the Zeiss 35mm f2.8. Meanwhile M4/3s smallest ever camera is coming out tomorrow, and that one will be legitimately pocketable. There will be obvious IQ and feature differences, but the size advantage for M4/3 remains. Or rather, the option for size savings remains. You've got the G-M1 and 20mm f1.7 for small, or you've got the E-M1 + Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 for big.

So, I don't think Sony killed the E-M1 and/or M4/3. I think, in fact, they did the opposite: this is going to help boost overall mirrorless sales. I believe this camera is spelling the end of the DSLR market. More manufacturers will be forced to go mirrorless. DSLR's are now not the only way to get the best possible performance from a Full Frame sensor (Leicas don't count). They are no longer exclusive. It'll take several years, but I do think this is truly watershed moment for the downfall of the DSLR.

I also think it might be difficult for Sony to sustain the FF + APS-C model in the future, but we'll see. I think the ideal market would be more M4/3 + FF. It's not even totally unreasonable to think Sony might eventually abandon the APS-C mirrorless market due to their partnerships with Olympus ( however unlikely, since Sony is doing better in the US, but just a thought).

I really like this Sony offering, and may end up buying one myself. But this isn't making me think of abandoning M4/3. Rather, it's making me think I'm going to buy an A7r instead of a D600. They priced it right, they sized it right, and they specced it (mostly) right. But against FF competitors. M4/3 isn't going anywhere.